Successful and safe introduction of laparoscopic colorectal cancer surgery in Dutch hospitals

Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals

BACKGROUND

Healthcare providers worldwide are struggling with rising costs while hospitals budgets are under stress. Colorectal cancer surgery is commonly performed, however it is associated with a disproportionate share of adverse events in general surgery. Since adverse events are associated with extra hospital costs it seems important to explicitly discuss the costs of complications and the risk factors for high-costs after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (6768 patients). Detailed clinical data was derived from the 2011-2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit database. Costs were measured uniform in all participating hospitals and based on Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

FINDINGS

Of total hospital costs in this study, 31% was spent on complications and the top 5% most expensive patients were accountable for 23% of hospitals budgets. Minor and severe complications were respectively associated with a 26% and 196% increase in costs as compared to patients without complications. Independent from other risk factors, ASA IV, double tumor, ASA III, short course preoperative radiotherapy and TNM-4 stadium disease were the top-5 attributors to high costs.

CONCLUSIONS

This article shows that complications after colorectal cancer surgery are associated with a substantial increase in costs. Although not all surgical complications can be prevented, reducing complications will result in considerable cost savings. By providing a business case we show that investments made to develop targeted quality improvement programs will pay off eventually. Results based on this study should encourage healthcare providers to endorse quality improvement efforts.

Comparing oncological outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer: Analysis of a large prospective clinical database

BACKGROUND

Oncological outcomes of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery have been shown to be equivalent to those of open surgery, but only in the setting of randomized controlled trials on highly selected patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether this finding is generalizable to real world practice.

METHODS

Analysis of prospectively collected data from the BioGrid Australia database was undertaken. Overall and cancer specific survival rates were compared with cox regression analysis controlling for the confounders of age, sex, BMI, ASA score, hospital site, year surgery performed, procedure, tumor stage, and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2009, 1,106 patients underwent elective colon cancer resection. There were differences between the laparoscopic and open cohorts in BMI, procedure, post-operative complication rate, and tumor stage. When baseline confounders were accounted for using cox regression analysis, there was no difference in 5 year overall survival (χ(2) test 1.302, P = 0.254), or cancer specific survival (χ(2) test 0.028, P = 0.866).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective clinical study validates previous trial results, and confirms that there is no difference in oncological outcome between laparoscopic and open surgery for colon cancer.

Representation of the elderly in trials of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer

AIM

Most patients with colorectal cancer are elderly, but there are few data on the optimal surgical treatment for this age group and most studies are observational. We have reviewed the characteristics of randomized trials reporting laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer to determine the degree to which the elderly are represented.

METHOD

A search was conducted of the NIH clinical trial registry and the ISRCTN register for randomized trials on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Trial characteristics and end-points were extracted from the registry website and supplemented by published results where available.

RESULTS

Of 52 trial protocols the majority did not state any restrictions regarding cardiac [40 (77%)] or pulmonary function [41 (79%)]. More than half [30 (58%)] had no restrictions regarding American Society of Anesthesiologists score. Twenty-three (44%) trials excluded the elderly either simply on age or by comorbidity or organ function. When an upper age limit was set, half of the studies had no restriction regarding organ function, indicating that chronological age rather than physical condition was taken as the reason for exclusion. In 45 (86%) of the trials the average age of participants was < 70 years, and no details of concurrent disease were given.

CONCLUSION

Participation of the elderly in trials of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is very limited. This should be remedied in future trials if adequate information on the majority of patients with colorectal cancer is to be obtained.

Improved survival for older patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer between 2008 and 2011

INTRODUCTION

Older colorectal cancer patients have a higher risk of postoperative complications, and the impact of adverse events on survival is also significantly higher. Innovations like laparoscopic surgery which improve short-term outcome for older patients can also benefit their overall prognosis. We set out to analyse the impact of an increased utilisation of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in the Netherlands on overall survival.

METHODS

All patients diagnosed with stages I-III colorectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2008 and 2011 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in perioperative mortality, 3-month mortality and 1-year mortality rates were analysed using year of diagnosis as an instrumental variable.

RESULTS

Over 33,000 patients were included in the analyses. Data on surgical approach were not precisely known for 2008 and 2009; in 2010, 36.6 % of definitive surgical procedures were performed laparoscopically and 45.9 % in 2011. A laparoscopic approach was used less frequently in the patients aged ≥75 years (in 2011, 40.3 versus 49.2 % of younger patients; p < 0.001). Between 2008 and 2011, perioperative mortality decreased from 2.0 to 1.5 % (p = 0.02), 3-month mortality from 4.8 to 3.9 % (p = 0.01) and 1-year mortality from 9.6 to 8.3 % (p < 0.001). The absolute risk reduction was greatest for patients aged ≥75 years, reaching 2.1 % for 1-year mortality.

CONCLUSION

Between 2008 and 2011, the utilisation of a laparoscopic approach increases significantly, resulting in reduced mortality rates, particularly for the elderly. Therefore, a laparoscopic approach should be used whenever possible, which may allow for further improvement of outcomes.

Beginning robotic assisted colorectal surgery - it's harder than it looks!

Introduction

Laparoscopy has been introduced into the field of colorectal surgery with the aim of reducing morbidity. One of the major barriers to overcome is the steep learning curve. Robotic surgery offers substantial advantages over traditional laparoscopy, which make the whole procedure more user friendly.

Aim

To present our initial experiences with robotic assisted colorectal surgery.

Material and methods

Thirty-five patients with colorectal cancer underwent robotic assisted procedures between 2011 and 2013.

Results

In total we performed 16 low anterior resections, 14 right colectomies, 3 abdominosacral resections and 2 left colectomies. There were 22 males and 13 females. The mean operative time was 315 ±65 min for a low anterior resection. The mean length of hospital stay was 6.4 ±1 days. There were 4 conversions to open procedures, 2 anastomotic leaks, and 1 colovaginal fistula. The mean lymph node yield was 12.7 ±4.3. The resection margin was negative in all but 1 patient.

Conclusions

We agree with the opinion that robotic surgery brings many advantages in pelvic dissections. In order to facilitate safe acquisition of robotic total mesorectal excision skills, surgeons should begin with female patients, and less advanced rectal cancer. In some instances robotic assistance can be helpful in right colectomies.

Laparoscopic colorectal surgery confers lower mortality in the elderly: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 66,483 patients

BACKGROUND

Increasing life expectancy requires specific attention on geriatric patients. Data support a potential reduction of surgical morbidity for patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery as compared to conventional surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the comparative effect of laparoscopic and open colorectal surgery on geriatric patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of electronic information sources was undertaken. Studies that provided outcome data on patients aged 65 years or older, subjected to laparoscopic or open colorectal surgery, were considered. Mortality, morbidity, cardiac and pulmonary complications were the outcome measures of treatment effect. The methodological quality of selected studies was independently appraised by two reviewers. Random effects model was applied to synthesize outcome data.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven articles providing data for 66,592 patients were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery had a decreased risk for mortality (2.2 vs. 5.4 %; OR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.44-0.67), overall morbidity (19.3 vs. 26.7 %; OR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.46-0.63), cardiac (4.7 vs. 7.7 %; OR 0.60, 95 % CI 0.39-0.92) and respiratory complications (3.9 vs. 6.3 %; OR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.47-0.95). Sensitivity analysis including reports with similar age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score and/or similar prevalence of cardiopulmonary morbidity between the laparoscopic and the open treatment arm validated the outcome estimates of the primary analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis supports a substantial benefit for elderly patients undergoing laparoscopic in comparison with open colorectal surgery. The comparative effect of either approach on geriatric patients with pulmonary and cardiac comorbidities is a subject of further investigation.

Successful total shift from multiport to single-port laparoscopic surgery in low anterior resection of colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the possibility of using single-port low anterior resection (LAR) in place of conventional laparoscopic LAR.

BACKGROUND

Though single-port LS is gradually evolving, the application of single-port LS techniques in LAR have been viewed with skepticism due to technical difficulties.

METHODS

Data from patients who had undergone either conventional laparoscopic LAR (n = 49) or single-port LAR (n = 67) for colorectal cancers between March 2006 and March 2013 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

In single-port LAR group, oncologic outcomes were satisfactory with respect to attainment of lymph nodes (23.4 ± 15.3) and surgical margins (proximal cut margin: 7.1 ± 4.6 cm, distal cut margin: 7.7 ± 5.7 cm). Single-port LAR showed acceptable clinical outcomes manifested by comparable outcomes of post-operative analgesics requirement and length of hospital stay, and by low incidence of post-operative complications (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 30.6% vs. single-port LAR group: 14.9%; P < 0.01). Operative time was comparable between groups (conventional laparoscopic LAR group: 309 ± 93 min vs. single-port LAR group: 277 ± 106 min; P = 0.097). Throughout a series of 67 consecutive single-port LARs, no conversion to multiport or open surgery was occurred.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that single-port LAR is both safe and feasible for use in resection of colorectal cancer when performed by surgeons who are trained in conventional laparoscopic technique. If further and more extensive studies support our results, then single-port LAR can be an acceptable alternative to conventional laparoscopic LAR for treatment of colorectal cancer.

Laparoscopic and robotic total mesorectal excision in the treatment of rectal cancer. Brief review and personal remarks

The current standard treatment for rectal cancer is based on a multimodality approach with preoperative radiochemotherapy in advanced cases and complete surgical removal through total mesorectal excision (TME). The most frequent surgical approach is traditional open surgery, as laparoscopic TME requires high technical skill, a long learning curve, and is not widespread, still being confined to centers with great experience in minimally invasive techniques. Nevertheless, in several studies, the laparoscopic approach, when compared to open surgery, has shown some better short-term clinical outcomes and at least comparable oncologic results. Robotic surgery for the treatment of rectal cancer is an emerging technique, which could overcome some of the technical difficulties posed by standard laparoscopy, but evidence from the literature regarding its oncologic safety and clinical outcomes is still lacking. This brief review analyses the current status of minimally invasive surgery for rectal cancer therapy, focusing on oncologic safety and the new robotic approach.

Laparoscopy for colorectal cancer

The laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection has been evolved from an experimental procedure with oncological concerns to routine daily practice within a period of two decades. Numerous randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown that laparoscopic resection results in faster recovery with similar oncological outcome compared to an open approach, both for colon and rectal cancer. Besides improved cosmesis, other long-term advantages seem to be less adhesion related small bowel obstruction and reduced incisional hernia rate. Adequate patient selection and surgical experience are of crucial importance. Experience can be gradually expanded step by step, by increasing the complexity of the procedure. A decision to convert should be made early in the procedure, because the outcome after a reactive conversion is worse than initial open resection or strategic conversion. The additive value of new techniques such as robotic surgery has to be proven in randomized studies including a cost-effectiveness assessment.

Experts reviews of the multidisciplinary consensus conference colon and rectal cancer 2012: science, opinions and experiences from the experts of surgery

The first multidisciplinary consensus conference on colon and rectal cancer was held in December 2012, achieving a majority of consensus for diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Delphi Method. This article will give a critical appraisal of the topics discussed during the meeting and in the consensus document by well-known leaders in surgery that were involved in this multidisciplinary consensus process. Scientific evidence, experience and opinions are collected to support multidisciplinary teams (MDT) with arguments for medical decision-making in diagnosis, staging and treatment strategies for patients with colon or rectal cancer. Surgery is the cornerstone of curative treatment for colon and rectal cancer. Standardizing treatment is an effective instrument to improve outcome of multidisciplinary cancer care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. In this article, a review of the following focuses; Perioperative care, age and colorectal surgery, obstructive colorectal cancer, stenting, surgical anatomical considerations, total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery and training, surgical considerations for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and local recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), surgery in stage IV colorectal cancer, definitions of quality of surgery, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), laparoscopic colon and rectal surgery, preoperative radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy, and how about functional outcome after surgery?

Uptake and patient outcomes of laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery in a publicly funded system and following financial incentives

PURPOSE

To assess patterns of uptake and outcomes of laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery in Ontario, and the potential influence of surgical fee incentives instituted on October 1, 2005.

METHODS

We used Ontario administrative databases from fiscal years 2002 to 2009. Study outcomes were uptake rates of laparoscopic surgery, hospital length of stay, 30-day operative mortality, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival. The main descriptor for multivariable regression models was a 5% increase in rate of laparoscopic colon cancer surgery in the previous year.

RESULTS

The annual rate of laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer surgery, respectively, rose from 8.7 to 38.9% and from 4.8 to 19.6%. The greatest increase in rate of laparoscopic colon surgery occurred shortly after October 1, 2005. For each 5% increase in rate of laparoscopic surgery, the odds of 30-day mortality was 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.01, p = 0.264], the hazard of cancer-specific survival was 1.0 (95% CI 0.97-1.00, p = 0.139), the hazard of overall survival was 1.0 (95% CI 0.98-1.00, p = 0.051), and length of hospital stay was lower (estimate = -0.10, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In Ontario by the year 2009, 39% of colon and 20% of rectal cancer surgery was provided laparoscopically. Increased rates were associated with a minimal decrease in hospital length of stay and no changes in 30-day mortality, cancer-specific survival, or overall survival. Financial incentives were likely responsible for the marked increase in laparoscopic colon cancer surgery observed after October 1, 2005.